NHL Awards - 2012

[Jason Harris 31]

As I said in a previous thread, surprisingly it all revolves around Boston for me.....

Thus, although I thought Bergeron played well enough to win the Selke -- he had the best +/- and won the most face-offs -- I wasn't fully expecting him to win since voters sometimes go off of memory.

However, it's a travesty that Chara did not win the Norris.

I will give Karlsson credit. He is a fantastic offensive player, and he must have picked up his play towards the end of the year, because I recall him being minus earlier in the season. But he only averaged thirty seconds a game of shorthanded time on the ice, nor do I recall him hopping over the boards every time the Bruins' best line was on the ice; both of those give an indication of what his coach feels about his current defensive capabilities.

Conversely, Chara had his best offensive year and was fourth in the league in scoring. More importantly, in a poll of players, he was the pick for hardest defenseman to go against.

That combination of above average offense and above average defense -- against each team's best players -- is what I believe should make up a Norris winner.

[Axxion89 32]

Karlsson had more TOI, Points, and played on a team predicted to finish last in the division. To call Chara losing a travesty is waaaaay exaggerated.

Copy paste of stats didn't work, look them up on TSN

[chippa13 1844]

Karlsson also averaged only 33 seconds of SH TOI whereas both Chara and Weber averaged much higher numbers. In my book, if you can't be trusted on the PK then you're probably not the "best defenseman".

[Jason Harris 31]

TOI

Chara: 25:00 (PP: 2:39 / SH: 2:43)

Karlsson: 25:19 (PP: 3:53 / SH: 0:33)

Even

Blocked Shots

Chara: 87

Karlsson: 65

Decent edge, Chara

Hits

Chara: 166

Karlsson: 60

Resounding edge, Chara

Again, Karlsson is an incredibly gifted offensive player -- and may eventually become Norris worthy, because his plus/minus picked up as the season went on -- but it's also possible that playing on a team with no expectations allowed him to flourish offensively. Equally true, the Bruins' defensive system allows Chara to flourish, although I think Chara is a huge reason why the Bruins' defensive system itself flourishes. Still, Karlsson's own coach doesn't trust him yet in defensive situations.

Finally, another repeat, BUT THE OTHER PLAYERS IN THE LEAGUE SAY CHARA'S THE TOUGHEST TO GO AGAINST! And that's while going against the best players in the league; Karlsson didn't spend anywhere near as much time on the ice against the opponents' best players.

I'm sticking with the word "travesty."

[IPv6Freely 2094]

I can't really argue any of the results of the awards. They all seemed pretty much spot on.

[Jason Harris 31]

Come on, you can't just phrase it that way. You need to elaborate why would you argue for Karlsson.

The award is for the "best all-around defenseman." It's clear that Karlsson is not yet a good defensive defenseman, so why would we weight significantly better offense, although with 50% more PP time and 80% less SH time (far more tiring), over the best defensive player with the fourth best scoring? Because, in theory, if Chara had comparable PP time to the top three scorers, he'd vault to number two.

[IPv6Freely 2094]

I didn't say anything about Karlsson. I wasn't commenting on your complaint. It's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

But for me, not one award winner was a surprise. Every award when announced was just "well, yeah. I can see that."

[Law Goalie 147]

Halak and Elliott got *robbed*: they should have split both the Jennings and the Vezina. I know Lundqvist was due, and from a 'letter of the law' view Lundqvist was the goalie (singular) who carried his team, but those two were head and shoulders above everyone until the playoffs.

The argument between Chara and Karlsson should at least have been pretty damn close. I think Karlsson's defensive game - especially as the season went on - became almost as terminally underrated as Lidstrom's was early in his career, but Chara is the single toughest defenceman in the game today, and possibly ever. The comparisons to Larry Robinson are not unjustified, and possibly even shortchange Chara a bit in terms of his physical dominance and defensive presence. Having said that, Karlsson won the defensive scoring race by so much that he had to be in the discussion, and the way he plays is kind of wonderful. I think once he's properly appreciated - all the usual career caveats aside - he could go down with Harvey, Orr, Lidstrom, and Niedermayer as one of the best skating defencemen of all time.

The point, ultimately, isn't that one or the other was a lock: it's that we're incredibly privileged to watch them play at the same time -- and how unbelievable Ottawa's D might have been if they'd kept Chara instead of Redden a few years back.

[hockeymass 11]

Karlsson wasn't a surprise, but I really disagree with him getting the Norris. Best all-around defenseman doesn't mean points leader.

[goblue9280 33]

It's nothing new with respect to the Norris Trophy... how many times has it gone to the guy with the best stats? Hell, Konstantinov was +60 one year (only time anyone has finished +60 in the past quarter century) and he didn't win the Norris.

FYI, Chara finished in third behind Karlsson and Weber.

[Axxion89 32]

Halak and Elliott got *robbed*: they should have split both the Jennings and the Vezina. I know Lundqvist was due, and from a 'letter of the law' view Lundqvist was the goalie (singular) who carried his team, but those two were head and shoulders above everyone until the playoffs.

True but it would be tough to say whether either goalie could handle a true starter's load such that Quick, Rinne, or Lundqvist had throughout the season. The playoffs showed that Elliott most likely could not keep his numbers as a full starter but Halak may have been able. Regardless, Lundqvist earned this one as his whole of work with games played, the team in front of him, and his stats made him worthy of the crown.

[RadioGaGa 162]

I know this comes up almost every year...but they give a Best Defensive Forward award....they should have a Best Offensive Defenceman Award. IT doens't even need to be voted on...make it strictly stat based, like the Art Ross or Richard. Norris should still go to the guy who plays a balanced game of Offense and Defense, but the points leader by defenceman should not necessarily be considered the best D-man in the League.

[Law Goalie 147]

Cherry, I think, has been pushing that one for a while: call it the Orr Award, and retroactively award it to Lidstrom every year he won a Norris. It's a really good idea just to remove the emphasis on points in the Norris debate, and it respects that, like the Selke, there are jobs that don't quite fit the classical parameters of the game.

Axx, don't get me wrong, Lundqvist had a great season, and the strict interpretation of the Vezina is the best goalie, singular, as I noted. But the tandem of Halak and Elliott outplayed Lundqvist, Rinne, and Quick by a wide margin, and I'm not just speaking statistically. The hypothetical question of whether they could have done as well apart isn't relevant, except in attempting to pry one of them out of the tandem and award him alone the Vezina for a half a season's work, when in fact both deserved it.

[hockeymass 11]

Cherry, I think, has been pushing that one for a while: call it the Orr Award, and retroactively award it to Lidstrom every year he won a Norris. It's a really good idea just to remove the emphasis on points in the Norris debate, and it respects that, like the Selke, there are jobs that don't quite fit the classical parameters of the game.

Axx, don't get me wrong, Lundqvist had a great season, and the strict interpretation of the Vezina is the best goalie, singular, as I noted. But the tandem of Halak and Elliott outplayed Lundqvist, Rinne, and Quick by a wide margin, and I'm not just speaking statistically. The hypothetical question of whether they could have done as well apart isn't relevant, except in attempting to pry one of them out of the tandem and award him alone the Vezina for a half a season's work, when in fact both deserved it.

Honestly, I don't know, I feel like what you're talking about is why the Jennings exists. I don't think the Vezina should go to a tandem.

[Law Goalie 147]

The Jennings exists because the NHL needed an objective consolation prize that reflected the way the Vezina had, historically, been awarded, after they switched to subjective Vezina criteria in 1982. It's got nothing to do with awarding tandems or individuals; the Jennings can still go to a single goalie because of the 25-game minimum. As I've said about eight times now, the sole reason why the Vezina should not be awarded to a tandem is the singular wording of the mandate which, in this case, resulted in a single goalie who was significantly less impressive than the tandem winning the award. That's not to say Lundqvist is a bad goalie, but that he was simply out-played by the St. Louis unit throughout the season.

[hockeymass 11]

The Jennings exists because the NHL needed an objective consolation prize that reflected the way the Vezina had, historically, been awarded, after they switched to subjective Vezina criteria in 1982. It's got nothing to do with awarding tandems or individuals; the Jennings can still go to a single goalie because of the 25-game minimum. As I've said about eight times now, the sole reason why the Vezina should not be awarded to a tandem is the singular wording of the mandate which, in this case, resulted in a single goalie who was significantly less impressive than the tandem winning the award. That's not to say Lundqvist is a bad goalie, but that he was simply out-played by the St. Louis unit throughout the season.

So what, though? The Norris doesn't get awarded to the best defensive pairing, ever, nor should it, same with the Selke going to the best forward line. The Jennings goes to the best team goaltending and the Vezina goes to the best singular goaltender. I just really don't think your argument makes much sense, even though you've said it 8 times.

[Law Goalie 147]

That's because you're not very bright.

Halak and Elliott split the season, something that doesn't happen very often on teams with good goaltending; that presents an aberration to the Vezina mandate, which was conceived in an era of definite marquee starters. (To put it another way, the league has an interest in promoting single marquee players, which is why the created the Vezina and its subjective ilk.)

Each of them, in the games they played, outplayed Lundqvist and everyone else by a substantial margin; they just happened to play fewer games.

Your 'defensive pair Norris' analogy is ludicrous -- unless, of course, you can find me some game footage of Halak and Elliott playing in the same game at the same time. I'll be looking forward to that, by the way.

A better question would have been whether a player who only played half the season could win the Hart, which of course is possible: as long as that half season was more valuable to his team than any other player's full season.

However, in this case, both Elliott and Halak played, more or less, equally well in an equal number of games. Were they on different teams, they could just vote it out. Here, there is a very good argument to be made - unless you're too stupid to understand how goaltending tandems work - that their success was substantially mutual. They did not, unlike your preposterous defense pair, share the same ice at the same time, but they could not be understood by any intelligent person to have been in direct competition.

Thus, as I said, they present an aberration to the Vezina award. The sensible solution would have been to split it between them; the cop-out was to say, 'Hey, they got the Jennings, and Lundqvist is due,' neatly overlooking the fact that they were both, individually, better than he was, and together they did far more for their team than he did alone.

[hockeymass 11]

That's because you're not very bright.

Halak and Elliott split the season, something that doesn't happen very often on teams with good goaltending; that presents an aberration to the Vezina mandate, which was conceived in an era of definite marquee starters. (To put it another way, the league has an interest in promoting single marquee players, which is why the created the Vezina and its subjective ilk.)

Each of them, in the games they played, outplayed Lundqvist and everyone else by a substantial margin; they just happened to play fewer games.

Your 'defensive pair Norris' analogy is ludicrous -- unless, of course, you can find me some game footage of Halak and Elliott playing in the same game at the same time. I'll be looking forward to that, by the way.

A better question would have been whether a player who only played half the season could win the Hart, which of course is possible: as long as that half season was more valuable to his team than any other player's full season.

However, in this case, both Elliott and Halak played, more or less, equally well in an equal number of games. Were they on different teams, they could just vote it out. Here, there is a very good argument to be made - unless you're too stupid to understand how goaltending tandems work - that their success was substantially mutual. They did not, unlike your preposterous defense pair, share the same ice at the same time, but they could not be understood by any intelligent person to have been in direct competition.

Thus, as I said, they present an aberration to the Vezina award. The sensible solution would have been to split it between them; the cop-out was to say, 'Hey, they got the Jennings, and Lundqvist is due,' neatly overlooking the fact that they were both, individually, better than he was, and together they did far more for their team than he did alone.

Well, I have to disagree, I'm actually extremely bright.

Ok, forget defensive pair. Defensive unit then? Award the Norris to the team with the best top 6 defensemen or the Selke to the best 12 forwards. It just doesn't make any difference if they together were better than any single goaltender from another team.

I don't really think you have any grounds to call me stupid, and I'll thank you to refrain from doing so.

[Steve_v3 289]

Karlsson wasn't a surprise, but I really disagree with him getting the Norris. Best all-around defenseman doesn't mean points leader.

I think Weber should have won it. I really hate the notion that just because you put up a ton of points as a defenseman you should be considered as a Norris finalist.

I know this comes up almost every year...but they give a Best Defensive Forward award....they should have a Best Offensive Defenceman Award. IT doens't even need to be voted on...make it strictly stat based, like the Art Ross or Richard. Norris should still go to the guy who plays a balanced game of Offense and Defense, but the points leader by defenceman should not necessarily be considered the best D-man in the League.

Totally agree.

[Leafsrule16 5]

It's nothing new with respect to the Norris Trophy... how many times has it gone to the guy with the best stats? Hell, Konstantinov was +60 one year (only time anyone has finished +60 in the past quarter century) and he didn't win the Norris.

FYI, Chara finished in third behind Karlsson and Weber.

I can totally see where everybody points at other guys for the win but I see (and mostly) agree with Karlsson's win. When has there, especially since dead puck era been an offensinve force as dominent as Erik Karlsson? There hasn't. Mike Green was hot on a great offensive team but was terrible in his own end, Karlsson is the most exciting player in the league to watch right now and that's why he won. No other defenceman has been near as exciting or done anything we haven't seen in years like Karlsson has. Seems all elite defenceman have been basically cut from the same mold, good two way players with a bit of offensive flair, size or a powerful slapshot but Karlsson brings so much more to the table and he won the trophy on what he brings to the table, not what he doesn't.

[hockeymass 11]

I can totally see where everybody points at other guys for the win but I see (and mostly) agree with Karlsson's win. When has there, especially since dead puck era been an offensinve force as dominent as Erik Karlsson? There hasn't. Mike Green was hot on a great offensive team but was terrible in his own end, Karlsson is the most exciting player in the league to watch right now and that's why he won. No other defenceman has been near as exciting or done anything we haven't seen in years like Karlsson has. Seems all elite defenceman have been basically cut from the same mold, good two way players with a bit of offensive flair, size or a powerful slapshot but Karlsson brings so much more to the table and he won the trophy on what he brings to the table, not what he doesn't.

But it doesn't matter because it's the best ALL AROUND defenseman... so actually playing defense should kind of be a requirement. Karlsson is Mike Green 2.0.

[Chadd 916]

If you win the Norris, your team shouldn't be afraid to put you on the ice when it comes time to kill a penalty.

[chippa13 1844]

I feel like I've heard that before.

[dsjunior1388 81]

But it doesn't matter because it's the best ALL AROUND defenseman... so actually playing defense should kind of be a requirement. Karlsson is Mike Green 2.0.

If you win the Norris, your team shouldn't be afraid to put you on the ice when it comes time to kill a penalty.

To play Devil's advocate here, I don't think the Green analogy is quite apt. Simply because Karlsson so far exceeded his fellow defenseman offensively, the margin he had over them compensates a little bit more for the issues he had in his own zone. Green was slightly better on offense in his top 3 finish years, and much worse on defense. Karlsson was significantly better on offense this year, and fairly mediocre in his own end. Karlsson's advantage was 25 points, Green's advantage in 08-09 was 9, and in 09-10 was 7.

Again, that's Devil's Advocate. I though Weber would win pretty much all season. That may be proximity bias because I watch Detroit a lot and saw him 6 times in that regard, but I was convinced he was the premier defenseman in the league this season.

[hockeymass 11]

To play Devil's advocate here, I don't think the Green analogy is quite apt. Simply because Karlsson so far exceeded his fellow defenseman offensively, the margin he had over them compensates a little bit more for the issues he had in his own zone. Green was slightly better on offense in his top 3 finish years, and much worse on defense. Karlsson was significantly better on offense this year, and fairly mediocre in his own end. Karlsson's advantage was 25 points, Green's advantage in 08-09 was 9, and in 09-10 was 7.

Again, that's Devil's Advocate. I though Weber would win pretty much all season. That may be proximity bias because I watch Detroit a lot and saw him 6 times in that regard, but I was convinced he was the premier defenseman in the league this season.

I think either Weber or Chara would have been a better choice. Recently the Norris seems less about the best all around defender and more about who gets the most attention in a given season.